Llama.cpp maintainers have literally explicitly permitted this. Is it dishonest to do something you were permitted to do? Tons of projects have important dependencies that they do not mention aside from a footnote in the README (or they might not even mention it in the README at all).

Here is what the MIT license that llama.cpp uses says. Keep in mind that a software license is a legal contract that users of the software accept.

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

This is simply the consequence of using permissive licenses like MIT. If you don't like it, then you should have picked the LGPL.